The relevance of much of what happens in the world today escapes public scrutiny, compliments of the corrupt corporate media. This site aims to help change that. Topics include the UN, oil pipelines, monetary policy and the fate of empires.

Wednesday, June 29, 2005

The U.N. War Document

The United Nations has been based, from its very inception, upon lies, deception and half-truths. The first lie was the notion that the U.S. could legally accept membership into the United Nations viz the treaty making power of the U.S. Senate and the president. In fact, a treaty is a contract entered into by two or more sovereign states, and the United Nations has never been a sovereign state. The reason the agreement to join the United Nations is presented to the public as a "treaty" is because per U.S. law, treaties are on equal footing with the U.S. Constitution as establishing the governing "Law of the Land." Without setting itself on equal or higher footing, the U.N. Security Council would have no power or mandate to circumvent the Constitutional requirement that Congress, and only Congress, has the power to move the United States of America into war.

More duplicity is clearly evident by causually perusing the U.N. Charter. Article 2 of the Charter states that the United Nations "is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members." In the first place, the words "equality of all members" should raise Communist alarm bells among those who have ears to hear. Only in socialism and Communism does one strive towards "equality among all." The U.S. Constitution certainly does not recognize all (sovereign) States (of the Union) as being "equal," as California clearly sends more delegates to Congress every two years than Delaware does. Nor does the U.S. Constitution recognize "equality" among individual citizens either, as the political rights defined in the Constitution are very closely tied to an individual's property rights, and only under Communism do we all share "equal" property.

Even more obviously, though, by the time you get to Article 25, the U.N. Charter manages to contradict itself by stipulating that all member nations "agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council." How a nation manages to simultaneously (a) retain its sovereignty; and (b) accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council is not adequately explained anywhere in the document.

NATO Forces Answer to the UN Security Council

A more aggressive contradiction can be found by comparing Article 1 of the U.N. Charter, in which the words "peace" or "peaceful" appear six times in the first four paragraphs, with Articles 52 through 54, which grant member states permission to establish "regional arrangements" so as to counter any possible military aggression. In fact, both NATO and SEATO were created in this manner, and both were (ironically) sold to the American public as a bulwark against the very same Communist forces that were responsible for their creation in the first place.

President Truman cited NATO as his excuse for committing U.S. troops to Korea, and his successors cited SEATO as theirs for doing the same in Vietnam. In so doing, these chief executives treasonously betrayed U.S. military plans and strategies to the very countries against whom the U.S. was engaged in combat with, and who (like the U.S.) were member states of the United Nations.

The most appalling slip back down into barbarism can be found in the "Orwellian" U. N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Unlike the founding documents of our own nation, which take it as a "self-evident" truth that all humans are granted certain inalienable rights by their Creator, and that the reason we institute governments among men is to preserve and protect these rights and liberties, the U.N. Declaration decides instead to adopt the Soviet model, whereby all "rights" are granted by a "constitution or by law," and that these rights shall furthermore be subject to "such limitations as are determined by law."

Sounds like a recipe for tyranny to me. It also sounds like the lawyers who drafted these documents might have been struggling with basic English skills. Last time I checked, the "right" is by definition something which cannot (by definition) be granted by anyone or anything (including constitutions and laws). Rather, a right is that power which is vested in the sovereign to begin with. But then again, what more could we expect from a legacy that's left us with a couple of C-students from Yale running the country?